Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review reveals divergent governance models and research priorities in international land investment literature, highlighting the need for balanced carbon standards and property rights.
Overseas land investment has emerged as one of the most complex human–environment system challenges of the twenty-first century, yet its evolving role under global carbon-neutrality targets remains theoretically under-specified. This study conducts a systematic literature review and bibliometrically assisted analysis of 145 English and 38 Chinese publications (2008–2026) to map the intellectual landscape, identify divergent research priorities, and examine the implications of carbon-credit-based land investment. Our analysis reveals three distinct evolutionary phases, extending from conceptual emergence and mechanism analysis to interdisciplinary expansion. It also identifies three parallel divergences between Chinese- and English-language research: contrasting research stances, thematic priorities, and governance imaginaries. These divergences are rooted in China’s transitional position within a Western-dominated discourse system. The findings suggest that China’s transition from rule adaptation to active governance participation is important, and that priority pathways include property-rights protection, carbon-standard alignment, and polycentric governance frameworks capable of balancing food security, host-country development rights, and global ecological justice. These findings provide both theoretical synthesis and actionable directions for governing land-based carbon markets in an era of geopolitical fragmentation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: